"Every household in Britain connected to the internet will be obliged to declare whether they want to maintain access to online pornography, David Cameron will announce on Monday." And so, the UK nanny state turns to straight up censorship. Let's look at some of the authoritarian policies that David Cameron wishes to enact.

If the real problem, as you say, is not exploitative production of porn and resulting shifted perceptions (that is, "harm to women"), but really is the addictions of men facilitated by free/cheap and easily available product to consume, what role is there for government to play? Why isn't the solution "Its your responsibility to stop doing things that harm you." Admittedly, for a small few, this is easier said than done. But what would be the wisdom in implementing any beurocracy or process intended to curb such isolated addictions? Especially to the extent that responsible consumers of porn are affected -- I suppose this all hinges upon your response to my second query, which is:

What harm does the porn itself actually cause? Not many reports of habitual masturbators robbing corner stores to keep up with their porn habits are there? Similarly few of "porn deals" gone bad. So the harm seems to be the perception of porn addicts as, ultimately, not pulling their weight in society. On a case-by-case basis this may or may not be true, but the fault ultimately is the addiction itself, not their drug of choice, whether it be pornography or heroin.

Leaving even governments aside, why should it be anyone's prerogitive to decide for someone else whether they are doing too much percieved harm (or good) to themself?

I agree that there should be help -- non-profits, community organizations, even perhaps government offices -- for those who want to rid themselves of such addictive behavior, for whatever addictions they suffer -- but what I would disagree with is for anyone to take it upon themselves to define what the standard is, and to track and prosecute those who would fall on the wrong side of it.